Bows Protected by the 2nd Amendment?

[wolfsire]

Rule #1

NO discussion of politics

This is a political issue, but many might find it interesting.  Because the rule at PaleoPlanet is a little different (No Political Debate), I have a thread there, not be to mirrored here.

http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/18374

  My analysis is that bows might or might not be protected, but an atlatl probably is not.  There you can find portions of the recent Supreme Court decision addressing what kinds of weapons are protected.

-edited to fix link

[Dane]

I'd say it would be almost impossible to keep politics out of this, since the ammendments to the US constitution, and the entire document itself, is a political manifesto.

But, off hand, I'd say no, bows were never in the minds of the founding fathers as part of a well regulated militia. And think about how European-decended colonists felt about indiginous peoples - not particulalry flattering. By that time, of course, I think gunpowerder weapons had been adopted by native peoples anyway.

Dane

[JackCrafty]

Interesting. (I'll add my 2 cents)

The bow and arrow can be used in self-defense (which is the general idea of the 2nd Amendment).  Therefore, I think it's ownership by an individual is protected by the constitution.

[P.W. Smith]

point taken, but what about Ben Franklin, who said of the bow and arrow, "these were good weapons, and not wisely laid aside"...(he was talking to the other founding Fathers about armaments for militia and their uses) (he advocated the use of a bow and arrow as a tool for quick and quiet ambushes, and noted the fact that the Natives had, before the adoption of firearms, used the bow and arrow with deadly and proficient force...another example of this is when a U.S. army scout stated something similar to this, "every indian warrior could launch three to five arrows, each one striking its mark, before the settlers' weapons [our good old flintlock musket], could fire twice. In my opinion, all politics aside, I think that a bow and arrow, along with a sling, bola, (maybe not an atlatl) and other "primitive" ranged weaponry could have a good, strong case made for their ability to be considered a weapon, as according to the 2nd ammendment...
Derek

[Justin Snyder]

I think this whole discussion is silly. Until someone goes into a mall and goes on a shooting spree with a bow the issue will remain irrelevant.  Justin

[wolfsire]

I'd say it would be almost impossible to keep politics out of this, since the ammendments to the US constitution, and the entire document itself, is a political manifesto.

Dane

Indeed.  Which is why I was was only going to post a link.  But I see admin has already commented, though I disagree with JS's analysis.  I think it will be relevant to hunting laws, which of course, are political, and I do not intend to discuss. 

Interestingly, the thread was just locked at PP for futher review.  But there is a diffence between discussing how this holding impacts our hobby rather than whether it was right or wrong.

[wolfsire]

Just a follow up note. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)#Amendment_II

states:

Right to bear arms

This provision has been held not to be incorporated against the states. See Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). However, the court has ruled that the second amendment constitutes an individual right to possess firearms, which the District of Columbia can not take away. See District of Columbia et al. v. Heller (2008). It now appears to be an open question as to whether the second amendment applies to the states.

[Postman]

I guess i can go on the  DC metro with a strung bow now.....


Ben Franklin was awesome - I love bald eagles, but the turkey would've been better! Bald eagles kleptoparasitize (steal food) a lot.

Happy upcoming 4th y'all.
wisely lay the fireworks aside!

[Justin Snyder]

Happy upcoming 4th y'all.
wisely lay the fireworks aside!

Now that you mention it, I would rather see a $500,000 volley of arrows than fireworks anyway.    Justin

[Mike_A]

If the Turkey was the national bird wouldn't that make it a protected species? I don't think I like that idea. . Mike

[sailordad]

ya, but then we could eat bald eagle for thanksgiving

[Justin Snyder]

Ben Franklin was awesome - I love bald eagles, but the turkey would've been better! Bald eagles kleptoparasitize (steal food) a lot.

Happy upcoming 4th y'all.
wisely lay the fireworks aside!

Oh heck why not make this a history lesson.  You are on the right track here Postman. Ben Franklin did not really try to make the turkey our National Bird. He was comparing the turkey to the eagle because the eagle on the original Great Seal looked more like a turkey.  He only expressed this to his daughter and that in a letter. There were other birds considered however, a two-headed eagle, a rooster, a dove, and a "phoenix in flames." Ben Franklin did make a good case for the rattle snake and an action scene including Moses and the Pharaoh. Now that we have mixed religion and polotics into this post, here is an excerpt from his letter.

Franklin's Letter to His Daughter

"For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.

"With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country . . .

"I am on this account not displeased that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America . . . He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on."

[Dano]

I woulda voted for the turkey as the national bird, looks aren't everything  The bird has my respect after chasin em in the woods.

[sailordad]

i'm in total agreement there.

they are smart,courageous,loyal,brave and beautiful creatures.

not to mention sneaky,quick,tuff,vicious and just plain mean when they want to be.

and yet they can be completly loving too.

if that dont sound like us good ol americans,i dont know what does

[Postman]

Thanks for that post sailordad - you made my 4th quite early with the  excerpt from my favorite brilliant lunatic, Benny F. I read somewhere a historian who  contended they assigned a "handler" of sorts to him because he was advertising the content of the constitutional debates in the local bars and starting "incidents...."

   Aside from the rather unscientific versions on the "unite or die " and "Dont tread on me" flags,(having the head all wrong just KILLS me, but ya still gotta love those flags!)  Timber Rattler would be my first choice as a nat'l mascot.  some of ya probalbly saw that coming, though. Give it a chance-   He's usually Docile, warns ya repeatedly when upset, but Keeeeep pushin' him.......Momma actaully takes care of her babies for a while(totally new science there...) Plus they look totally awesome on a bow. 
-
 Did y'all catch "John Adams" recently? good stuff - I highly recommend it to anyone who dug Sailordad's post.